Hi Thomas,
On Wed, 2 May 2018 10:13:00 +0200, Thomas Petazzoni
<thomas.petazzoni@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hello Miquèl,
>
> On Sat, 21 Apr 2018 15:55:29 +0200, Miquel Raynal wrote:
> > Introduce new bindings for the ICU.
>
> Perhaps this should explain *why* we need new bindings.
Sure, I changed the whole message by:
The ICU can handle several type of interrupt, each of them being
handled differently on AP side. On CP side, the ICU should be able
to make the distinction between each interrupt group by pointing to
the right parent.
This is done through the introduction of new bindings, presenting
the ICU node as the parent of multiple ICU sub-nodes, each of them
being an interrupt type with a different interrupt parent. ICU
interrupt 'clients' now directly point to the right sub-node,
avoiding the need for the extra ICU_GRP_* parameter.
ICU subnodes are probed automatically with
devm_platform_populate(). If the node as no child, the probe
function for NSRs will still be called 'manually' in order to
preserve backward compatibility with DT using the old binding.
>
> > Each DT subnode of the ICU represents a type of interrupt that should
> > be handled separately. Add the possibility for the ICU to have subnodes
> > and probe each of them automatically with devm_platform_populate(). If
> > the node as no child, the probe function for NSRs will still be called
> > 'manually'.
>
> ... in order to preserve backward compatibility with Device Trees
> using the old binding.
Added, see above.
>
> > +static struct mvebu_icu *mvebu_dev_get_drvdata(struct platform_device *pdev)
>
> The function should be prefixed by mvebu_icu_, not just mvebu_.
Changed.
>
> > +{
> > + struct mvebu_icu *icu;
> > +
> > + icu = dev_get_drvdata(&pdev->dev);
> > + if (icu) {
> > + /* Legacy bindings: get the device data */
>
> I find this comment weird, because it doesn't document what the test
> just below is doing.
Refactored a bit the comments in this section.
>
> > + if (!icu->legacy_bindings)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + } else {
> > + /* New bindings: get the parent device (ICU) data */
> > + icu = dev_get_drvdata(pdev->dev.parent);
> > + if (!icu)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-ENODEV);
> > + if (icu->legacy_bindings)
> > + return ERR_PTR(-EINVAL);
> > + }
>
>
> > @@ -144,7 +170,10 @@ mvebu_icu_irq_domain_alloc(struct irq_domain *domain, unsigned int virq,
> > goto free_irqd;
> > }
> >
> > - icu_irqd->icu_group = fwspec->param[0];
> > + if (icu->legacy_bindings)
> > + icu_irqd->icu_group = fwspec->param[0];
> > + else
> > + icu_irqd->icu_group = ICU_GRP_NSR;
>
> In practice here fwspec->param[0] is always going to be equal to
> ICU_GRP_NSR, but OK, the test makes sense as in a future commit, the
> "else" case will be changed to support SEIs.
>
> > +static const struct of_device_id mvebu_icu_nsr_of_match[] = {
> > + { .compatible = "marvell,cp110-icu-nsr", },
> > + {},
> > +};
> > +
> > +static struct platform_driver mvebu_icu_nsr_driver = {
> > + .probe = mvebu_icu_nsr_probe,
> > + .driver = {
> > + .name = "mvebu-icu-nsr",
> > + .of_match_table = mvebu_icu_nsr_of_match,
> > + },
> > +};
> > +builtin_platform_driver(mvebu_icu_nsr_driver);
>
> I'm not sure why you call this icu_nsr here, and change it later to
> icu_subset. Wouldn't it make sense to call it right away with the final
> name ? Note that this is not a very strong request to change this
> aspect, I'm fine with how it's done today, it's just that I would have
> done it differently.
I thought calling it icu_subset right now would not be very clear as
there are not "ICU subset" other than NSR interrupts, but I changed it,
this is not a big deal.
>
> Other than that, looks good to me.
>
> Thomas
Thanks for the review,
Miquèl
--
Miquel Raynal, Bootlin (formerly Free Electrons)
Embedded Linux and Kernel engineering
https://bootlin.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe devicetree" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
